North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Historical
Re: Persistent BGP peer flapping - do you care?
- From: Christopher A. Woodfield
- Date: Sat Jan 19 14:40:56 2002
IMO, bad negototiation messages are a bit more indicitave of a
malfunctioning router that a bad prefix is, as it's unquestioningly
something that was originated by the router in question, where a bad
prefix could easily have originated elsewhere. Receipt of a malformed
negotiation message should definitely be grounds for terminating the BGP
session.
Whether or not a BGP peer shuts down the peering session upon receipt of a
bad prefix, it should definitely refuse to propagate the invalid data. The
fact that Brand "C" routers propagated the bad prefix was the primary
cause of what happened in October.
-C
On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 06:46:42PM -0800, Jake Khuon wrote:
>
> ### On Fri, 18 Jan 2002 21:39:10 -0500, Susan Hares <skh@nexthop.com>
> ### casually decided to expound upon Vijay Gill <vijay@umbc.edu> the
> ### following thoughts about "Re: Persistent BGP peer flapping - do you
> ### care? ":
>
> SH> What else causes repeative peer bounces other than the broken prefix?
>
> Well... I remember when bad capability negotiation messages would cause the
> session to drop. Although this is before any update messages were sent.
> However it still caused repeating session bouncing.
>
>
> --
> /*===================[ Jake Khuon <khuon@NEEBU.Net> ]======================+
> | Packet Plumber, Network Engineers /| / [~ [~ |) | | --------------- |
> | for Effective Bandwidth Utilisation / |/ [_ [_ |) |_| N E T W O R K S |
> +=========================================================================*/
--
---------------------------
Christopher A. Woodfield rekoil@semihuman.com
PGP Public Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xB887618B
|
